Paula

I didn’t just make that up. As I said, I’ve used it for a long time.

A command can be given to an individual or a group, but a law requires penalties and agreements between parties. This is vital for understanding all the NT says about the sharp divide between the Law and the Promise. So this definition I use came from scripture.

It is important to define terms because people tend to equivocate on the meanings during debates, resulting in poor communication and wasted time.

So the question is whether Paul in this passage is giving a law or a command, and no, they are not identical. If a law, then there had to have been a witnessed agreement between the parties involved, stipulating penalties for violation. If a command, then it cannot be claimed to have universal application as the comps insist.

For example, Paul gave a command for Timothy to drink wine. No one would mistake that for a universally binding law. In the same way, Paul gave a command about a woman teaching falsehood. It is no more a binding law for other women than his command to Timothy is binding on other men.

But if these were laws then they would apply to all male elders and all women. That is the question Cheryl is asking.